Anarchy is basically the idea that government is evil, initiation of force is evil, taxation is evil, and we should all live in voluntary relations all the time with no laws and no institutionalized systems of justice or police or military because those are, like, oppressive, er something.

The problem with this is obviously that each of those claims is bullshit. So anarchy is stupid.

More specifically, on the issue of the initiation of force: sometimes you have to initiate force. And sometimes you need to initiate force in response or anticipation to something other than immediate physical self-defense. That is just the way it is.

If your country needs a highway system then you may need to initiate some force to get that put in place. A highway system is a value, and if you rely on insurance and voluntary contributions and donated labor time then you're not going to get the fucking highway system built, at least not for another 50 years. This same type of example can work with a thousand other examples too. It is simply the case not only for a society but also for an individual such as you and I that at times the initiation of force is "proper" or "ethical" even if our immediate safety and life is not being threatened. This fact owes itself to how there are much more, much more important, and much subtler values at play than merely our immediate physical safety and survival.

If something is of value either to you personally or to a large group, or to the largest 'group' of all (a society) then some initiation of force is justified in furthering that value. Therefore the Ayn Randian view that initiation of the use of force is always wrong and that the government's monopoly on the legal initiation of the use of force is always wrong, is actually wrong. It is wrong not because it is wrong per se, but because of the radical narrowness of the sphere of its concern when it comes to which values are justifying for the initiation of the use of force.

Furthermore, every being and every living being in particular is always using small initiations of force on each other, either implicitly or explicitly, grossly or subtly. It is not only necessary to do so, it is simply what it means to exist. One example of a small initiation of force is socialization as such, interacting with each other in social environments and relationships. The initiation of force is so encoded into what we are and into our systems of sociality and interaction that we do not even notice it anymore, most of the time.

So a theory like anarchy is basically deeply ignorant of reality, of the way things really are. And any theory that is ignorant like that is simply going to fail time and time again. Also, if an anarchy did actually exist it would be a race to see how quickly it could either devolve into mafia rule and mob gang violence versus be taken over by a neighboring non-anarchic country that actually has... a functional military and industrial technological infrastructure for producing advanced weapons.

Historically, "anarchy" does not last long. Humans, or any other organism, establish and reestablish society and order very quickly. There are no "long periods" of anarchy, because it creates a power vacuum. If one society or country is in anarchy then it makes it susceptible and easily invaded and conquered. So ordered societies will feed upon, prey upon anarchic and disorganized societies.

Military is antithetical to anarchy. Anarchy represents absolute chaos/disorder. Military represents absolute order. The two cannot coexist. An anarchic society would get stomped and dominated by an invading military/army. If an anarchic society wanted to defend itself then what would it need to do, except, become organized and militarized?

Anarchists are short-sighted, emotional driven people, usually young males between the age 18-24. Young males call for anarchy because they foresee the system/society they live in, want to reject it, and rebel/revolt/overthrow society. This is naive and ignorant. You can't really "overthrow" societies. If you did then it would require massive unrest, propaganda, and the rise of a popular minority group. Similar to how the Nazis rose to power in the chaotic aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles. So people revolt when they have no other options. Slave classes and oppressed classes, tend to revolt. This is expected. However a leader is needed to act on behalf of the lesser willed and capable people.

Anarchism is idealism, not realism. It is a dream-world. And those who put faith into the dreams and ideals of anarchism, are so short-sighted and unreal, that they cannot properly imagine the world "if we won". If an anarchist rose to power, in the aftermath of tumult, then what would happen? Would he not impose the same fascism, government, and social order of before? How would "the change" be any different than any other point in history?

What is so revolutionary about a new revolution? What newness does the anarchist bring to the table?

Every anarchist I've ever interacted with, have no great vision, and have no long-term plan. They don't envision a future in which case "they won". They cannot explain that the order that would come after a tumult. Therefore, it proves to me, that they have no future. And the anarchistic drive, almost always, is nihilistic. It is not meant to be realized. And it is not meant to be won.

For the historical 'Revolutions' across human history, they required a grand vision, and heroic leaders, to spark them, and to follow through with the aftermath.

Another note....anarchy is also opposed to religions and religious ideology. Religions, despite being laden in mythology and idealism, have long-term thinking and morality, at least. Religions have vision. And so religion conflicts with anarchy in such that a religion would want to invoke and establish an 'order' to a society during or directly after an anarchic time. This is why Catholicism flourished in the European Dark Ages. Because while Europeans were infighting and chaotic, the Catholic Church slowly, over time, accumulated more and more power. While everybody was fighting among themselves, the Catholics had a long-term vision, that eventually dominated all of South Europe, and even crusaded into the Northern European pagan lands, before the rise of Protestantism (pagan rebellion against the Catholic centralized power/government).

Neo feudalism and decentralization is the antithesis to anarchists, many of them don't realize they can have the kind of independence that they want while still having a small nation state.

(I speak as a former anarchist myself.)

You can be a statist and be against centralization. You can become a decentralist state supporter. Tribalism or tribal miniature nation states is where it is at for independence seeking individuals. Before centralization there was city states, tribal nations, lawless criminal territories (No man's land), and national confederations.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Government is a state of individual character. It's almost scientific. Young people tend to be liberal, because they do not yet own assets (Responsibilities). Older people, gaining assets in life, become indebted and ingrained in society and social relationships, resulting in forced cooperation. Thus older people tend to be conservative. The liberal-conservative dichotomy can be explained through every category. Males tend to be more liberal than females, who are conservative, based on sex. A male has little or nothing to lose, to have sex, while a woman has much to lose.

The same analogies and relationships can be made by leftism-rightism, communism, marxism, capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy, fascism, totalitarianism, etc. For example, East Asians (Chinese) are totalitarian communists because East Asians are strongly genetically homogeneous and isolated from foreign races, opposed to European Universalism or Judaic multi-culturalism, which rely on interacting with foreign people, tribes, and races on a daily basis.

History can account for governmental qualities as well.

The point I'm making here, is that when any person or individual says "I am a Democrat", "I am a Republican", "I am a Liberal", "I am a Conservative", "I am an Anarchist", "I am a soldier", etc. then you can pinpoint their personality and general disposition in life. Why are they that? Most people don't realize why they are, what they are. And it is not until the reasons and causes are revealed that it makes perfect sense why this or that individual is as he or she is. People convince themselves that they are, what they are not. The capitalist can pretend to be a communist or socialist, but for how long, before the underlying values are exposed?

Before a person, chasing dollar bills, proves to everybody else in action, what he or she is?

It's easy to identify somebody who chases money, and claims that "money solves all problems", the capitalist. People can't really pretend to be what they're not, for long.

To connect this point back to the topic....anarchists are a mixed bag, yet, an obvious bunch. Anarchism represents general social discontentment. Anarchists presume, sometimes falsely, that "the government is out to get me!!!" without understanding what "the government" even is. Many groups use "the government" as a scape-goat concept. "The government is inherently bad" without realizing that everybody participates, willingly or not, in "the government".

"The Government" is an abstraction of power. It is a belief-system. It is very much a matter of faith. People believe "the government" rules over them. But what does that even, really, truly, mean? People answer this question by their conception and understanding of "the government". For a christian, for example, this would mean that abrahamic-god watches over humanity, "cares and loves" humanity unconditionally, but rarely or never even interacts with humanity. That would be "the government" to a christian person.

So, essentially, "the government" represents an abstraction by an individual, in order to represent their ideals of power, control, and authority.

All of these representations can be, and usually are, deeply flawed. It requires a very deep understanding and wisdom to link such diverse and individualistic notions of "the government", between what the reality is, and how people idealistically view their own societies, cultures, and countries.